2016

SELF COMPACTING
CONCRETE
A report submitted in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of technology in civil engineering

Under supervision of
Prof. ARNAB NANDI

SUBMITED BY:
ABHINANDAN MAHATO (1201327)
GAURAV GAMBHIR (1201319)
AMOD KUMAR (1201318)
ANIK DUTTA (1201321)
KETAN KISLEY (1201326)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is with immense pleasure that I express my sincere sense of gratitude and humble
appreciation to Prof. Arnab Nandi for his invaluable guidance, whole-hearted co-
operation, constructive criticism and continuous encouragement in the preparation
of this thesis. Without his support and guidance, the present work would have
remained a dream.
I would also like to thank Prof. Banu Gopal Mohapatra, Dean, School of Civil
Engineering KIIT UNIVERSITY, for providing necessary facilities.
I take this opportunity to thank Prof. S. Banerjee, Mr. Alok Das and [Link]
[Link] for their valuable support and involvement throughout the preparation of this
work. I also thank all those who have directly or indirectly helped in completion of
this work.

1
 DECLARATION OF SCHOLAR

I hereby certify that the work which is being presented in the report entitle "SELF
COMPACTING CONCRETE" in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of
the degree of Bachelor of Technology in School of Civil Engineering under KIIT
University, Bhubaneswar is an authentic record of my own work carried out during
the period from 2015 to 2016 under the supervision of Prof. Arnab Nandi.
The matter embodied in this thesis has not been submitted by me for the award of
any other degree of this or any other University/Institute.

signature
Abhinandan Mahato
Gaurav Gambhir
Amod kumar
Anik Dutta
Ketan kislay

This is to certify that above statement made by the student is correct to the best of
our knowledge.

Prof. Arnab Nandi

(Supervisor)
School of Civil Engineering

2
 CONTENTS
Chapter-1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL 5
1.2 ADVANTAGE OF APPLICATION OF 6
SCC ON SITE
1.3 EXAMPLE OF STRUCTURES BUILT 6-8
OF SCC
1.4 OBJECTIVE OF PRESENT STUDY 9
Chapter-2 LITRETURE REVIEW
2.1 QUANTITIES OF DIFFERENT 17
MATERIALS USED BY
DIFFERENT AUTHERS
FOR MAKING SCC
2.2 RESULT OF DIFFERENT TEST 18
CONDUCTED BY DIFFERENT
AUTHORS ON SCC
Chapter-3 MATERIAL
3.1 CEMENT 19
3.2 AGGREGATE 19
3.3 COARSE AGGRE. 19
3.4 FINE AGGRE. 19
3.5 CHEMICAL ADMIX. 20
3.6 WATER 22
Chapter-4 MIX DESIGN FOR M30 GRADE CONRETE 23
Chapter-5 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
5.1 SLUMP FLOW TEST 24-26
5.2 L BOX TEST 27-29
5.3 V FUNNEL TEST 30-31
5.4 U BOX TEST 32-33

3
 5.5 MECHANICAL STRENGTH TEST 34
Chapter-6 RESULTS & DISSCUSION
6.1 RESULT 35
6.2 DISCUSSION 35
Chapter-7 SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK 36
Chapter-8 DISADVANTAGE AND OBSTACLES FOR 37
THE IMPLETETION OF SCC
Chapter-9 PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN DURING THE 38-40
EXPERIMENT
Chapter-10 CONCLUSION 41
REFERENCES 42-43
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 Quantities of different materials for making SCC 17
2.2 Results of different test conducted on SCC 18
3.1 Physical properties of 43 grade OPC 20
3.2 Chemical properties of 43 grade OPC 21
3.3 Physical properties of coarse aggregate 21
3.4 Physical properties of fine aggregate 21
3.5 Properties of Superplasticizer Auramix-300 22
5.5.1 Results of Mechanical strength test 34

LIST OF FIGURES
1.3.1 Burj khalifa, Dubai 7
1.3.2 Arlanda Airport control tower,Sweden 7
1.3.3 National Museum of 21st century art, Rome 8
5.1.1 Slump flow 25
5.1.2 Schematic diagram of the Abram’s Cone 1 25
5.1.3 Schematic diagram of the Abram’s Cone 2 25
5.2.1 L -Box apparatus 27
5.2.2 Schematic diagram of the L-Box apparatus 28

4
 5.2.3 L –Box apparatus used in test 29
5.3.1 The V-Funnel 30
5.3.2 The V-Funnel apparatus 31
5.4.1 The U –Box apparatus 32
5.4.2 The U –Box apparatus 33
5.5.1 Compression Testing Machine 34

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1GENERAL

Self-compacting concrete (SCC), requiring no consolidation work at site or concrete

plants, has been developed in Japan to improve the durability and uniformity of
concrete in 1988 (Okamura and Ouchi, 1999). The mix composition is chosen to
satisfy all performance criteria for the concrete in both the fresh and hardened
states. There is no standard method for SCC mix design, and many academic
institutions as well as admixture, ready-mixed, precast and contracting companies
have developed their own mix proportioning methods. One of the most important
differences between SCC and conventional concrete is the incorporation of a mineral
admixture. Thus, many studies on the effects of mineral admixtures on the
properties of SCC have been conducted. These studies show the advantage of
mineral admixture usage in SCC, such as improved workability with reduced cement
content (Poppe and Shutter, 2005). Since cement is the most expensive component
of concrete, reducing cement content is an economical solution. Additionally, the
mineral admixtures can improve particle packing and decrease the permeability of
concrete. Therefore, the durability of concrete is also increased. Industrial by-
products or waste materials such as limestone powder, fly ash and granulated blast
furnace slag are generally used as mineral admixtures in SCC. Thereby, the
workability of SCC is improved and the used amount of by-products or waste

5
materials can be increased. Besides the economical benefits, such uses of by-
products or waste materials in concrete reduce environmental pollution. Fly ash is an
industrial by-product, generated from the combustion of coal in the thermal power
plants. The increasing scarcity of raw materials and the urgent need to protect the
environment against pollution has accentuated the significance of developing new
building materials based on industrial waste generated from coal fired thermal
power stations creating unmanageable disposal problems due to their potential to
pollute the environment. Fly ash, when used as a mineral admixture in concrete,
improves its strength and durability characteristics. Fly ash can be used either as an
admixture or as a partial replacement of cement. It can also be used as a partial
replacement of fine aggregates, as a total replacement of fine aggregates and as
supplementary addition to achieve different properties of concrete.

1.2ADVANTAGES OF APPLICATION OF SELF-COMPACTING CONCRETE ON SITE

The main advantages of application of self-compacting concrete on site are as
follows:
 No vibration of fresh concrete is necessary during placement into forms.
 Placement of concrete is easier.
 Faster and more efficient placement of fresh concrete is achieved. Total
concreting time is reduced.
 Noise level on construction site is reduced. Thus the number of working hours
on the construction site can be increased and the night shift in urban zones is
enabled.
 Energy consumption is reduced.
 Required number of workers on construction site is reduced.
 Safer and healthier working environment is obtained.
Upon self-compacting concrete hardening in structures:

6
  High quality of placed concrete is achieved, regardless the skill of the workers.
 Good bond between concrete and reinforcement is obtained, even in
congested reinforcement.
 High quality of concrete surface finish is obtained with no need for
subsequent repair.
 With a better final appearance of concrete surface, smooth wall surfaces and
flat floor surfaces that need no further finishing are obtained.
 Improved durability of structures is achieved.
 Maintenance costs are reduced.

1.3EXAMPLES OF STRUCTURES BUILT OF SELF-COMPACTING CONCRETE

Earliest research in design of self-compacting concrete mixes began in the mid-
eighties in the twentieth century in Japan. The main drive for this research were the
endangered durability of reinforced concrete structures, need for easier and high-
quality fresh concrete placement and lack of skilled labour force. In 1986, Okamura,
Kochi University, Japan, was the first to propose concrete that would be placed
under the influence of self-weight only.
The new technology was possible owing to the development of concrete
superplasticizers which had been developed during the previous decades. After an
extremely successful initial application in actual structures in Japan, the application
of self-compacting concrete began in the entire world. Presently it is a very eagerly
used material both in construction sites and in production of precast members.
Extensive testing of physical and mechanical properties of SCC was carried out
during the past decade. This was followed by economic analyses which confirmed
the rationality of SCC application. Practical application was extended from large
infrastructure buildings (bridges, tanks, retaining walls, tunnels, etc.) onto
architectural buildings also. SCC appears here as a structural material in load-
bearing members but at the same times it also appears frequently as architectural
concrete. Architectural concrete was defined by the American Concrete Institute as
“concrete which will be permanently exposed to view and which therefore requires
special care in selection of the concrete materials, forming, placing and finishing, to
obtain the desired architectural appearance”.
Several characteristic examples are:

7
 Burj Khalifa, Dubai - The Burj Dubai structure
represents the state-of- the-art in super high-
rise buildings. During its construction the most
recent accomplishments in all fields have
been united, including concrete production
technology. Several different concrete mixes
were used in this project. It was necessary to
place 230000m3 of fresh concrete. That is the
quantity that was built-in into tower, podium
and office annex excluding foundations. The
designed concretes were obtained using

FIG 1.3.1

Portland cement combined with silica fume, fly ash or ground slag. As a result,
different materials having high density and high final strength were obtained
(concrete C50 was built-in into floor structures and C60 and C80 into vertical
load-bearing members). The structure has sufficient rigidity, toughness and high
load-bearing capacity. In course of construction of the building the concrete was
pumped to higher and higher heights so it was necessary to provide
extraordinary flowing ability of concrete through pipes. A world record was
achieved: on November 8, 2007 highest vertical concrete pumping for buildings,
601m, was performed. Everything in this fantastic project was carefully planned.
Thus concrete was poured usually at night to enable work at lower temperatures
and higher humidity. Concrete was additionally cooled by adding a part of water
in the form of ice. Total height, 828 m, was reached on January 17, 2009.
 Arlanda Airport Control Tower, Stockholm, Sweden –
This tower was designed by Wingårdh Arkitektkontor
AB. The total height of the tower is 83 m. The
structure of the pillar consists of two shafts having
different dimensions which is emphasised by two-
colour design. There are several eccentrically placed
circular floor structures at the top. Facade walls are

FIG 1.3.2

8
 parts of a cone. The tower was completed and opened in 2001. Today it
represents a symbol of Stockholm. During the construction stage, the inner
formwork was being climbed by a crane while the outer scaffolding and
formwork were self-climbing. SCC was used in order to achieve the concreting
speed of a standard floor height h=3.27m in a 4-day climbing cycle of formwork
and to ensue high-quality concrete placing without vibration. The decreased
noise level during concrete placing enabled concreting during the night shift.
 National Museum of 21st Century Art
(MAXXI), Rome, Italy – MAXXI was
designed by Zaha Hadid. In 1998 she
won the international competition out of
273 candidates. The museum building
covers a surface of 30,000 m2 in
Flaminio District on a site originally

FIG 1.3.3

occupied by a car factory and army

barracks built in the 19th century. The building is characteristic for its winding
exhibition space formed of reinforced concrete walls with glass roof. These
structures look more like bridges since they only have walls at the sides and a
floor structure while the roof is of glass on steel girders. On its winding path the
structure comes across large spans, irregular supports and long overhangs. In
some places the walls are 14m high. Reinforced concrete wall surfaces are
visible and they require a perfect surface finish. In order to meet all these high
requirements, the contractor for the concrete structure decided to use self-
compacting concrete. The concrete was cast along the entire lengths of the
walls to avoid construction joints. This amounted up to 70 meters in length and 9
m in height in some members. The concrete was mixed and made on the
construction site. Concreting lasted even up to 18 hours. To avoid segregation,
the height from which the fresh concrete was poured was limited to maximum
15cm. Application of powdered limestone and epoxy resin additives provided
perfectly smooth surface finish of concrete walls. To prevent development of
excessive heat in fresh concrete, concreting was performed only when the

9
 temperature was below 25oC, i.e. practically from November to April.

1.4OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY

The present work has been organised into six chapters. Following is a brief
outline of the report:
 A brief introduction of the project work is presented in the first chapter.
 In the second chapter, general overview of literatures from various journals
and publication are overviewed and discussed.
 The third chapter presents the general overviews of various materials used
in this study are discussed.
 The fourth chapter represents the calculation of MIX Design.
 The fifth chapter presents the experimental procedure like mixing
procedure, specification, detail of various tests and their procedure.
 The sixth chapter presents result and discussion obtained from the
various tests performed on the self-compacting concrete.
 As a result of the study carried out, scope for the further work are
presented in the seventh chapter to bring out the outcome of the present
work.
 In the eight chapter the disadvantages and obstacles in implementing self-
compacting concrete are presented.
 The ninth chapter contains some photograph taken during the time of
performing the experiments.
 Tenth chapter represents the conclusion of the project.
 At last, the references are listed.

10
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
Self-compacting concrete (SCC) is a flowing concrete mixture that is able to
consolidate under its own weight. The highly fluid nature of SCC makes it suitable for
placing in difficult conditions and in sections with congested reinforcement. Use of
SCC can also help minimize hearing-related damages on the worksite that are
induced by vibration of concrete. Another advantage of SCC is that the time required
to place large sections is considerably reduced.

Historical Background – When the construction industry in Japan experienced a

decline in the availability of skilled labour in the 1980s, a need was felt for a concrete
that could overcome the problems of defective workmanship. This led to the
development of self-compacting concrete, primarily through the work by Okamura. A
committee was formed to study the properties of self-compacting concrete,
including a fundamental investigation on workability of concrete, which was carried
out by Ozawa et al. at the University of Tokyo. The first usable version of self-
compacting concrete was completed in 1988 and was named “High Performance
Concrete”, and later proposed as “Self Compacting High Performance Concrete”.
In Japan, the volume of SCC in construction has risen steadily over the years. Data
indicate that the share of application of SCC in precast concrete industry is more
than three times higher than that in the ready-mixed concrete industry. This is
attributable to the higher cost of SCC. The estimated average price of SCC supplied
by the RMC industry in Japan was 1.5 times that of the conventional concrete in the
year 2002. Research studies in Japan are also promoting new types of applications
with SCC, such as in lattice type structures, casting without pump, and tunnel linings.
Since the development of SCC in Japan, many organizations across the world have
carried out research on properties of SCC. The Brite-Euram SCC project was set up
to promote the use of SCC in some of the European countries. A state-of-the-art

11
report on SCC was compiled by Skarendahl and Petersson summarizing the
conclusions from the research studies sponsored by the Brite-Euram project on SCC.
A recent initiative in Europe is the formation of the project – Testing SCC – involving
a number of institutes in research studies on various test methods for SCC. In
addition, an organization with the participation from the speciality concrete product
industry – EFNARC – has developed specifications and guidelines for the use of SCC
that covers a number of topics, ranging from materials selection and mixture design
to the significance of testing methods.
Current studies in SCC – Current studies in SCC are being conducted in many
countries, can be divided into the following categories:
i. Use of rheometers to obtain data about flow behaviour of cement paste and
concrete.
ii. Mixture proportioning methods for SCC.
iii. Characterization of SCC using laboratory test methods.
iv. Durability and hardened properties of SCC and their comparison with normal
concrete.
v. Construction issues related to SCC.
These will be relevant to the immediate needs. In addition, the following questions
also need particular attention, from a long-term perspective:
i. Development of mixture design guideline tables similar to those for normal
concrete.
ii. A shift to more ‘normal’ powder contents in SCC, from the existing high
powder mixtures.
iii. Better understanding of the problems of autogenous and plastic shrinkage in
SCC.
iv. Development of site quality control parameters such as in ‘all-in-one’,
acceptance tests.

Materials for SCC – Mixture proportions for SCC differ from those of ordinary
concrete, in that the former has more powder content and less coarse aggregate.
Moreover, SCC incorporates high range water reducers (HRWR, superplasticizers) in
larger amounts and frequently a viscosity modifying agent (VMA) in small doses.
The questions that dominate the selection of materials for SCC are:
i. Limits on the amount of marginally unsuitable aggregates, that is, those

12
 deviating from ideal shapes and sizes.
ii. Choice of HRWR and VMA.
iii. Interaction and compatibility between cement, HRWR, and VMA. These are
discussed below.

Tests conducted on Self Compacting Concrete – The tests conducted on self SCC
are:
 Slump Flow + T50 Test (Reference Method for Filling Ability)
 L Box Test (Reference Method for Passing Ability)
 V Funnel Test (For Filling Ability) – Alternative Method to T50
 U Box Test (For Passing Ability of Self – Compacting Concrete)
 Mechanical Strength Test

Properties of Hardened SCC

 Structural Properties – The basic ingredients used in SCC mixes are
practically the same as those used in the conventional HPC vibrated concrete,
except they are mixed in different proportions and the addition of special
admixtures to meet the project specifications for SCC. The hardened
properties are expected to be similar to those obtainable with HPC concrete.
Laboratory and field tests have demonstrated that the SCC hardened
properties are indeed similar to those of HPC.
 Compressive Strength – SCC compressive strengths are comparable to those
of conventional vibrated concrete made with similar mix proportions and
water/cement ratio. There is no difficulty in producing SCC with compressive
strengths up to 60MPa.
 Tensile Strength – Tensile strengths are based on the indirect splitting test on
cylinders. For SCC, the tensile strengths and the ratios of tensile and
compressive strengths are in the same order of magnitude as the
conventional vibrated concrete.
 Bond Strength – Pull-out tests have been performed to determine the
strength of the bond between concrete and reinforcement of different
diameters. In general, the SCC bond strengths expressed in terms of the
compressive strengths are higher than those of conventional concrete.

13
  Modulus of Elasticity – SCC and conventional concrete bear a similar
relationship between modulus of elasticity and compressive strength
expressed in the form E/(fc)0.5, where E = modulus of elasticity, fc =
compressive strength. This is similar to the one recommended by ACI for
conventional normal weight concrete.

Some authors and their studies of self-compacting concrete:

Dhiyaneshwaran, S. [1] investigated the study of workability and durability
characteristics of Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC) with Viscosity Modifying
Admixture (VMA), and containing Class F fly ash. In this investigation, SCC was
made by usual ingredients such as cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, water
and mineral admixture fly ash at various replacement levels (10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and
50%). The super plasticizer used was Glenium B233 and the viscosity modifying
agent used was Glenium Stream 2. The experiments were carried out by adopting a
water-powder ratio of 0.45. Workability of the fresh concrete was determined by
using tests such as: slump flow, T50, V-funnel, L-Box and U-box tests. The durability
of concrete was tested by acid resistance, sulphate attack and saturated water
absorption at the age of 28, 56 and 90 days.
Raissa P. Douglas [2] investigating the behaviour of SCC containing Class F fly ash
has been carried out. The fresh state properties of the concrete were assessed using
methods of segregation and flow. Finally, some hardened state properties of the
concrete were evaluated. The objective of this research was to improve the
understanding of the properties of SCC containing Class F fly ash and to provide
information that could be used towards the commercialisation of such a concrete.
The results indicated that it is possible to develop a SCC containing Class F fly ash
that is high performing in its fresh state. Furthermore, the addition of fly ash was
shown to reduce superplasticizer dosage, increase workability, and increase overall
chloride permeability resistance. In addition, it was determined that the difference of
densities between the aggregate and matrix influence the results of a previously
developed paste rheology model.

Arivalagan S [3] conducted an experimental program aimed at producing and

evaluating SCC made with high volumes of fly ash. Nine SCC mixtures and one

14
control concrete were investigated in this study. The content of the cementitious
materials was maintained constant (400 kg/m3), while the water / cementitious
material ratios ranged from 0.35 to 0.45. The self-compacting mixtures had a
cement replacement of 40, 50 and 60% by Class F fly ash. Tests were carried out of
hardened concretes such as compressive strength. The self-compacting concretes
developed a 28- day compressive strengths ranging from 26 to 48 MPa. The results
show that an economical self-compacting concrete could be successfully developed
by incorporating high-volumes of Class F fly ash. The project investigated the
making of self-compacting concrete more affordable for the construction market by
replacing high volumes of Portland cement by fly ash. The study focused on
comparison of fresh properties of SCC containing varying amounts of fly ash with
that containing commercially available admixture. Test results proved the feasibility
to develop low cost SCC using Class F fly ash.

Miao Liu [4] investigated the influence of fly ash and ground glass on the mortar
fraction of the SCC and then using these results to produce concrete mixes with the
target fresh properties. Hardened concrete of these mixes were measured and the
relationships between these investigated.
The results showed that for constant filling ability of the SCC, replacement of
cement with fly ash or ground glass requires an increase in water/powder ratio and a
reduction in superplasticizer dosage. Both additions degraded the passing ability,
consistence retention and hardened properties but not to a prohibitive extent. SCC
with up 80% cement replaced by fly ash or glass volume ratio of 6.4% is possible and
the material properties of SCC are similar to those of normally vibrated concrete
(NVC). Also the UCL method of mix design was extended to higher coarse aggregate
contents and different additions.

R Gettu [5] developed a mix design methodology self-compacting concrete such

concretes based on four steps where simple test procedures were used. Self-
compacting concrete with a 90-day compressive strength of about 100 MPa was
obtained.

Deepa Balakrishnan S. [6] investigated the production of high volume fly ash self-
compacting concrete with 12.5%, 18.75%, 25%, and 37.5% of the cement (by mass)

15
replaced by fly ash and 6.25%, 12.5% and 25% of the cement replaced by dolomite
powder. For these mixtures compressive strength (cube) was studied at 7thday, 28th
day and 90th days with same water powder ratio (0.33). The test results for
acceptance characteristics of self-compacting concrete such as slump flow test, J-
ring test, V-funnel test and L-box test were presented. The mixes were then tested
for other mechanical properties like, cube compressive strength at 7th day, 28th day,
and 90th day, cylinder compressive strength at 28th day, split tensile strength, and
flexural strength at 28th day. For all levels of cement replacement concrete achieved
superior performance in the fresh and mechanical tests compared with the reference
mixture.

Dr. Salahaldein Alsadey [7] conducted an experimental investigation to determine

the optimum dosage for the admixtures and to study the effect of over dosage of the
mentioned admixtures. Concrete mixes with SP dosages of 600, 800, 1000 and 1200
ml/100kg of cement were prepared, together with one control mixes. After casting,
normal curing was carried out on the concrete samples. Properties such as
compressive strength were determined, besides determining the workability of the
fresh concrete. However, compressive strength was improved by dosage 1.0 % of SP
after 28 days curing was 55 N/mm2, which is higher than that of control concrete.

Tarun R. Naik [8] presented a paper on development, properties, and advantages and
disadvantages of using high-strength self-consolidating concrete in the construction
industry. It also presents results of a study recently completed for manufacturing
economical high-strength self-consolidating concrete containing high-volumes of fly
ash. In this study, Portland cement was replaced by Class C fly ash in the range of 35
to 55% by the mass of cement. The results of fresh and hardened properties of
concrete show that the use of high-volumes of Class C fly ash in self-consolidating
concrete drastically reduces the requirements for superplasticizer (HRWRA) and
viscosity modifying agent (VMA) compared with the normal dosage for such
admixtures in self-consolidating concrete. The results further indicate that
economical self-consolidating concrete with 28-day strengths up to 9,000 psi can be
made using high-volumes of fly ash. Such concretes can be used for a wide range of
applications from cast-in-place to pre-cast concrete construction.

16
Liana Iureş and Corneliu Bob [11] presented a paper on the characteristics of the
self-compacting concretes, their advantages and disadvantages when they are used
in buildings. Due to its properties and composition, the self-compacting concrete is
described here as being one of the future friendly environmental materials for
buildings. Tests concerning to obtaining a self-compacting concrete, together with
the specific fresh concrete properties tests, are described.

Ms. Priyanka P. Naik and Prof. M. R. Vyawahare [12] compared the strength
characteristics between self-compacting concrete using silica fume and quarry dust.
A simple mix design for SCC proposed by Nan-Su et al has been used for fixing the
trial mix. The trial mixes which satisfy the fresh concrete properties as per EFNARC
guidelines and the one which gives the maximum strength has been used in the
present work. The harden properties such as compressive strength, split tensile
strength of SCC using silica fume and quarry dust were determined, silica fume
shows the better result in strength properties than those of quarry dust.

Md Nor Atan and Hanizam Awang [13] investigated the compressive and flexural
strengths of self-compacting concrete incorporating raw rice husk ash,
individually and in combination with other types of mineral additives, as partial
cement replacement. The additives paired with raw rice husk ash were fine
limestone powder, pulverized fuel ash and silica fumes. The mix design was based
on the rational method where solid constituents were fixed while water and
superplasticizer contents were adjusted to produce optimum viscosity and flow
ability. All mixes were designed to achieve SF1 class slump-flow with conformity
criteria 520 mm and 700 mm. Test results showed that 15% replacement of
cement using raw rice husk ash produced grade 40 concrete. It was also revealed
that 30% and 45% cement replacements using raw rice husk ash combined with
limestone powder and raw rice husk ash combined with limestone powder and
silica fume respectively, produced comparable compressive strength to normal
concrete and improved flexural strengths.
N R Gaywala, D B Raijiwala [14] presented the progress of the research on different
hardened properties of Self Compacting Concrete using the Ordinary Portland
Cement of “Ultratech” make and low-calcium fly ash from Birla Glass, Kosamba,
Gujarat, as binder materials in making the concrete mixes along with other

17
ingredients locally available in Gujarat. The hardened properties like compressive
strength, split tensile strength, flexural strength and impact strength were found in
experimental work and were compared with M25 grade of concrete

18
 Table 2.1 Quantities of different materials (in kg/m3) used by different Authors for making Self-Compacting Concrete

Author   Cement Fly ash Coarse Agg Fine Agg Water Superplasticiser w/p ratio Limestone
Parathiba Aggarwal, 10% fly ash replacing cement 485 135 977 561 257 1.14 1.21 NA
Rafat Siddique, 20% Fly ash replacing cement 485 135 977 561 256 1.14 1.2 NA
Yogesh Aggarwal, 30% fly ash replacing cement 485 135 977 561 254 1.14 1.19 NA
Surinder M Gupta [14] 40% fly ash replacing cement 485 135 977 561 253 1.14 1.18 NA
  50% fly ash replacing cement 485 135 977 561 252 1.14 1.18 NA
                   
ACM Centre, C (Normal) 470 NA 777 790 198 4.75 0.33 133
University of Pasiley, UK [15] F1 (Reduced filling) 462 NA 777 790 202 3.18 0.34 131
  F2 (Reducing filling) 480 NA 777 790 192 6.82 0.32 136
  P (Passing ability) 412 NA 777 689 172 4.5 0.33 117
                   
Dhiyaneshwaran, 10% fly ash replacing cement 477 53 668 768 238.5 0.86 0.45 NA
Ramanathan, 20% fly ash replacing cement 424 106 668 768 238.5 0.86 0.45 NA
Baskar, 30% fly ash replacing cement 371 159 668 768 238.5 0.86 0.45 NA
Venkatasubramani [1] 40% fly ash replacing cement 318 212 668 768 238.5 0.86 0.45 NA
  50% fly ash replacing cement 265 265 668 768 238.5 0.86 0.45 NA
 Table 2.2 Results of different tests conducted by different Authors on Self-Compacting Concrete

Slump Flow V Funnel L Box 28 days Compressive Strength U Box (H2-

Author   (mm) (sec) (H1/H2) (Mpa) H1)
10% Flyash replacing
Parathiba Aggarwal, cement 696.7 12 0.3 22.67 NA
20% Flyash replacing
Rafat Siddique, cement 676.7 11 0.9 25.36 NA
30% Flyash replacing
Yogesh Aggarwal, cement 713.33 10 0.95 26.9 NA
40%Flyash replacing
Surinder M Gupta [14] cement 660 8 0.9 27.57 NA
50% Flyash replacing
  cement 670 8 0.67 31.54 NA
             
ACM Centre, C(Normal) 705 2±.7 .85±.05 NA NA
University of Pasiley, UK F1(Reduced filling) 605 2.5±.7 .63±.05 NA NA
 [15] F2(Reducing filling) 785 2±.7 .94±.05 NA NA
  P(Passing ability) 660 3±.7 .3±.05 NA NA
             
10% Flyash replacing
Dhiyaneshwaran, cement 675 10.6 0.933 32.19 24

20
 20% Flyash replacing
Ramanathan, cement 685 9.8 0.946 37.89 22
30% Flyash replacing
Baskar, cement 690 8.5 0.953 41.42 19
40%Flyash replacing
Venkatasubramani [1] cement 685 7.9 0.95 37.18 19.5
50% Flyash replacing
  cement 678 7.6 0.946 35.9 20

21
 CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS

3.1CEMENT
Cement has different properties and characteristics which depend upon their
chemical compositions. By changing in fineness of grinding, oxide compositions
cement has exhibit different properties and different kind of cement. The use of
additives, changing chemical composition, and use of different raw materials have
resulted in the availability of many types of cements.
Cement used in the experimental work is ORDINARY PORTLAND CEMENT of 43
grades conforming to IS: 8112/1989. The physical properties & chemical properties
of the cement obtained on conducting appropriate tests are as per IS: 269/4831 and
the requirements as per IS: 8112/1989 are given in the Table 3.1 & Table 3.2.

3.2AGGREGATES
Aggregates are the important constituents in concrete. They give body to the
concrete, reduce shrinkage and effect economy. The fact that the aggregates occupy
70-80 present of volume of concrete, it has some impact on various characteristics
and properties of concrete. Earlier, aggregates were considered as chemically inert
material but now it has been recognised that some of the aggregate are chemical
active and also certain aggregates ere exhibit chemical bond at the interface of
aggregate and paste.

3.3COARSE AGGREGATE
Crushed granite of 12.5mm passing and 10mm retaining size are used as coarse
aggregate. The sieve analysis of aggregates confirms to the specifications of IS: 383
-1970. The Physical Properties are given in the Table 3.3.

3.4FINE AGGREGATE
Fine aggregate which satisfied the required properties for experimental work and
conforms to zone as per the specification of IS: 383-1970. The Physical Properties
are given in the Table 3.4.
3.5CHEMICAL ADMIXTURE
Polycarboxylate Ester based superplasticizer Aura mix – 300 (FOSROC) was used.
The properties of Aura mix - 300 are given in Table 3.5.

3.6WATER
Clean potable water as obtained from laboratory of School of Civil Engineering, KIIT
University was used for mixing and curing of concrete.

Table 3.1 Physical Properties of 43 grade ordinary Portland cement

[Link] PARTICULARS TEST REQUIREMENT OF
RESULTS IS:8112/1987
1 Fineness obtained (inM2/Kg) 310 225 (min)
2 Setting time (Minutes)
1. Initial 170 30 (min)
2. Final 235 600 (max)
3 Soundness
1. Le-Chatelier expansion (mm) 1.50 10(max)
2. Autoclave (%) 0.012 0.8(max)
4 Compressive strength (MPa)
1. 72+1Hr 30.2 23.0(min)
2. 168+2Hr 40.1 33.0(min)
3. 672+4Hr 52.8 43.0(min)

23
 Table 3.2 Chemical Properties of 43 grade ordinary Portland cement
[Link] PARTICULARS TEST REQUIREMENT OF
RESULTS IS:8112/1987
1 Lime (% by mass) 60.87
2 Soluble silica (% by mass) 20.55
3 Alumina (% by mass) 5.36
4 Iron Oxide (% by mass) 4.00
5 Magnesia (% by mass) 0.74 6 (max)
6 Sulphuric Anhydride (% by mass) 1.83 3 (max)
7 Loss on Ignition (% by mass) 3.10 4 (max)
8 Insoluble Reside (% by mass) 2.93 5(max)
9 Chlorides (% by mass) 0.0173 0.05 (max)
10 Lime saturation Factor 0.90 0.66-1.02
11 Al2O3/Fe2O3 1.34 0.66(min)

Table 3.3 Physical Properties of coarse aggregate

[Link] PARTICULARS TEST
RESULTS
1 Specific Gravity 2.7
2 Fineness Modulus 6.2
3 Water Absorption 0.4(%)

Table 3.4 Physical Properties of fine aggregate

[Link] PARTICULARS TEST RESULTS
1 Specific gravity 2.65
2 Fineness Modulus 2.47
3 Water Absorption 0.85(%)
4 Free Surface Moisture 0.90(%)

24
 Table 3.5 Properties of Superplasticizer Auramix - 300
Aspect Light brown liquid
Relative density 1.09 ± 0.01 at 25°C
pH >6
Chloride ion content < 0.2%

25
 CHAPTER 4

MIX DESIGN FOR M30 GRADE CONCRETE

Total volume(V) = Cement (c) + fine aggregate (fa) + coarse aggregate (ca)+ Water
(w)
Trial mix:
 Taking (aggregate/cement) ratio = 4.5
 V = (w + c/sc + (1/p) * (fa/Sfa)) *1/1000
 Sc = sp. Gravity of cement = 3.14
 W = max. mass of water per meter cube = 186
 P = c/a ratio = 1/4.5
 Assuming water cement ratio = 0.4
 Taking 80% of w = 186 * 0.8 = 148.8 kg/m3
 Therefore, quantity of cement required = 148.8/0.4 = 372 kg/m3
 Quantity of aggregate required = 4.5 * 372 = 1674 kg/m3
 Total volume = a + c + w = 2194.8
Final mix:
 Taking a/c = 4
 Taking 90% of w =186*0.9 =167.4 kg/m3
 Taking w/c = 0.4
 Therefore, quantity of cement required = 167.4/0.4 =418 kg/m3
 Quantity of aggregate required = 418*4 = 1672 kg/m3
 Taking fine aggregate 35 % 0f total aggregate = 627kg/m3
 Therefore, coarse aggregate = 1045 kg/m3
 Therefore, mix proportion = 418: 627: 1045
 Final mix proportion = 1(c): 1.5(fa): 2.5(ca)
Quantity of materials required for 9 cubes:
 = 0.15 * 0.15 * 0.15 * 9 + 10% of (0.15 * 0.15 * 0.15 * 9)
 = 0.03341 m3

1.5*1500*0.03341
 Cement = = 15.035 kg
1+1.5+2.5

26
  Fine aggregate = 15.035 * 1.5 = 22.55 kg
 Coarse aggregate = 15.035 * 2.5 = 37.58 kg
 Water = 6.014 kg
 Plasticiser (Aura mix 300) = 0.2% of cement = 31gm

CHAPTER 5

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
5.1SLUMP FLOW + T50 TEST (REFERENCE METHOD FOR FILLING ABILITY)
i. Principle
The slump flow test aims at investigating the filling ability of SCC. It measures
two parameters: flow spread and flow time T50. The former indicates the free,
unrestricted deformability and the latter indicates the rate of deformation
within a defined flow distance.
ii. Equipment’s
a. Base plate of size at least 900 × 900 mm, made of impermeable and rigid
material (steel or plywood) with smooth and plane test surface (deviation of
the flatness not exceed 3 mm), and clearly marked with circles of Ø200mm
and Ø500mm at the centre.
NOTE: The deviation of the flatness of the test surface is defined as the
greatest difference in height between the highest and the lowest points on
that surface, while disregarding any small single cavities in the surface.
b. Abrams cone with the internal upper/lower diameter equal to 100/200 mm
and the height of 300 mm.
c. Weight ring (>9 kg) for keeping Abrams cone in place during sample filling.
Alternatively, a cast iron one may be used as long as the weight of the cone
exceeds 10 kg. As a second alternative the cone may be kept in position by
human force.
d. Stopwatch with the accuracy of 0.1 second for recording the flow time T50.
e. Ruler (graduated in mm) for measuring the diameters of the flow spread.

27
 f. Bucket with a capacity of larger than 6 litres for sampling fresh concrete.
g. Moist sponge or towel for wetting the inner surface of the cone and the test
surface of the base plate.
h. Rag for cleaning spilled concrete if any.
iii. Test procedure
1. Place the cleaned base plate in a stable and level position.
2. Fill the bucket with 6~7 litres of representative fresh SCC and let the sample
stand still for about 1 minute (± 10 seconds).
3. During the 1-minute waiting period pre-wet the inner surface of the cone and
the test surface of the base plate using the moist sponge or towel, and place
the cone in the centre on the 200 mm circle of the base plate and put the
weight ring on the top of the cone to keep it in place.
4. Fill the cone with the sample from the bucket without any external
compacting action such as rodding or vibrating. The surplus concrete above
the top of the cone should be struck off, and any concrete remaining on the
base plate should be removed.
5. Check and make sure that the test surface is neither too wet nor too dry. No
dry area on the base plate is allowed and any surplus of the water should be
removed – the moisture state of the plate has to be ‘just wet’.
6. After a short rest (no more than 30 seconds for cleaning and checking the
moist state of the test surface), lift the cone perpendicular to the base plate
in a single movement, in such a manner that the concrete is allowed to flow
out freely without obstruction from the cone, and start the stopwatch the
moment the cone loses contact with the base plate.
7. Stop the stopwatch when the front of the concrete first touches the circle of
diameter 500 mm. The stopwatch reading is recorded as the T50 value. The
test is completed when the concrete flow has ceased.
NOTE: Do not touch the base plate or otherwise disturb the concrete until the
measurement described below is completed.
8. Measure the largest diameter of the flow spread, dmax, and the one
perpendicular to it, dperp, using the ruler (reading to nearest 5 mm). Care
should be taken to prevent the ruler from bending.
9. Clean the base plate and the cone after testing.

28
 Fig-5.1.1 Slump flow

Fig-5.1.2 Schematic Diagram of the Fig-5.1.3 Schematic Diagram of

Abram’s Cone 1 the Abram’s Cone 2

29
iv. Expression of results
a. The slump flow spread S is the average of diameters dmax and
dperp, as shown in Equation. S is expressed in mm to the nearest 5
mm.

dmax+dperp
s= = 728mm
2
b. The slump flow time T50 is the period between the moment the
cone leaves the base plate and SCC first touches the circle of
diameter 500 mm. T50 is expressed in seconds to the nearest 1/10
seconds.

T50 = 4.567 second

30
5.2L BOX TEST (REFERENCE METHOD FOR PASSING ABILITY)

i. Principle
The method aims at investigating the passing ability of SCC. It measures the
reached height of fresh SCC after passing through the specified gaps of steel
bars and flowing within a defined flow distance. With this reached height, the
passing or blocking behaviour of SCC can be estimated.
ii. Equipment’s
a. L- Box apparatus is shown in Figures. Two types of gates can be
used, one with smooth bars and one with 2 smooth bars. The gaps
are 41 and 59 mm, respectively.
b. Suitable tool for ensuring that the box is level i.e. a spirit level.
c. Suitable buckets for taking concrete sample.

31
Fig 5.2.1 L BOX APPARATUS

32
Fig-5.2.2 Schematic Diagram of the L – Box Apparatus
A. Side View B. Top View

33
iii. Test procedure
a. Place the L-box in a stable and level position.
b. Fill the vertical part of the L-box, with the extra adapter mounted, with
fresh SCC.
c. Let the concrete rest in the vertical part for one minute (± 10
seconds). During this time the concrete will display whether it is
stable or not (segregation).
d. Lift the sliding gate and let the concrete flow out of the vertical part
into the horizontal part of the L-box.
e. When the concrete has stopped moving, measure the average
distance, noted as Δh between the top edge of the box and the
concrete that reached the end of the box, at three positions, one at
the centre and two at each side.

Fig-5.2.3 L Box Apparatus being used for Passing Ability Test of SCC

iv. Expression of results

34
 h2 10
The passing ratio is calculated as: PL = = = 0.833
h1 12

5.3V FUNNEL TEST (FOR FILLING ABILITY) – ALTERNATIVE METHOD TO T50

i. Principle
The V-funnel flow time is the period a defined volume of SCC needs to pass a
narrow opening and gives an indication of the filling ability of SCC provided
that blocking and/or segregation do not take place; the flow time of the V-
funnel test is to some degree related to the plastic viscosity.
ii. Equipment’s
a. V-funnel is made of steel, with a flat, horizontal top and placed on
vertical supports, and with a momentary releasable, watertight
opening gate.
b. Stopwatch with the accuracy of 0.1 second for recording the flow
time.
c. Straightedge for levelling the concrete.
d. Buckets with a capacity of 12∼14 litres for taking concrete sample.
e. Moist sponge or towel for wetting the inner surface of the V-funnel.

35
 Fig- 5.3.1 THE V FUNNEL
iii. Test procedure
a. Place the cleaned V-funnel vertically on a stable and flat ground, with
the top opening horizontally positioned.
b. Wet the interior of the funnel with the moist sponge or towel and
remove the surplus of water, e.g. through the opening. The inner side
of the funnel should be ‘just wet’.
c. Close the gate and place a bucket under it in order to retain the
concrete to be passed.
d. Fill the funnel completely with a representative sample of SCC
without applying any compaction or rodding.
e. Remove any surplus of concrete from the top of the funnel using the
straightedge.
f. Open the gate after a waiting period of (10 ± 2) seconds. Start the
stopwatch at the same moment the gate opens.
g. Look inside the funnel and stop the time at the moment when clear
space is visible through the opening of the funnel. The stopwatch
reading is recorded as the V-funnel flow time, noted as tv. Do not
touch or move the V-funnel until it is empty.
h. Clean the V-funnel after testing.

36
 Fig- 5.3.2 The V Funnel Apparatus

iv. Expression of Results

The V-funnel flow time tv is the period from releasing the gate until first light
enters the opening, expressed to the nearest 0.1 second.

tv = 7sec

5.4U BOX TEST (FOR PASSING ABILITY OF SELF – COMPACTING CONCRETE)

i. Principle
This test is used to find the passing ability of SCC through the reinforcing bar,
similar to that of L-Box test. The limitations of this test as specified by
EFNARC guidelines are the difference in the height H1 - H2 to be within the
limit of 0-30 mm.
ii. Equipment’s
a. U – Box of a stiff non absorbing material.
b. Scoop.
c. Trowel.
d. Stopwatch.
e. Moist sponge or towel for wetting the inner surface of the U-Box.

37
 Fig-5.4.1 The U – Box Apparatus
iii. Test Procedure
a. Set the apparatus level on firm ground, ensure that the sliding gate can
open freely and then close it.
b. Moisten the inside surface of the apparatus, remove any surplus water,
fill the vertical section of the apparatus with the concrete sample.
c. Leave it stand for 1 minute. Lift the sliding gate and allow the concrete
to flow out into the other compartment.
d. After the concrete has come to rest, measure the height of the
concrete in the compartment that has been filled, in two places and
calculate the mean (H1).
e. Measure also the height in the other equipment (H2). The whole test
has to be performed within 5 minutes.

38
 Fig- 5.4.2 The U – Box Apparatus
iv. Expression of Result
Calculate H1-H2, the filling height.
If the concrete flows as freely as water, at rest it will be horizontal, so H1-
H2=0. Therefore, the nearest this test value, the ‘filling height’, is to zero, the
better the flow and passing ability of the concrete.

H1-H2 =12mm

39
5.5MECHANICAL STRENGTH TEST

Fig-5.5.1 Compression Testing Machine

RESULTS:
TABLE 5.5.1
Compressive Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Average
strength (mpa) (mpa) (mpa) (mpa)
After 7 days 39.7 40.12 39.27 39.7

After 14 days 39.8 41.1 42.5 41.13

After 28 days 44.34 54.56 49.6 49.5

40
 CHAPTER 6

RESULTS AND DISSCUSSION

6.1 RESULT
TEST RESULT

SLUMP FLOW TEST T 50 = 4.567 SECOND

SPREAD FLOW = 728mm

L BOX TEST PL = 0.833

V BOX TEST TV = 7 SECOND

U BOX TEST H1 – H2 = 12mm

MECHANICAL 7 DAYS 39.7 mpa

STRENGTH TEST
14 DAYS 41.13 mpa

28 DAYS 49.5 mpa

6.2DISCUSSION
 Self-compacting concrete technology can save time, cost, enhance quality,
durability and more over it is a green concept.
 Since the concrete is capable of self-consolidating and reaching the difficult
areas in mould, manual variables in terms of placing and compacting
concrete is nil. This factor ultimately yield defect less, better quality concrete
structures
 Cost-in-place concrete construction in tight space and congested
reinforcement, such as drilled shaft, columns and earth retaining systems can
be accelerated by using SCC.

41
 CHAPTER 7

SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK

Since a rational mix design method and an appropriate acceptance testing method
at the job site have both largely been established for self-compacting concrete, the
main obstacles for the wide use of self-compacting concrete can be considered to
have been solved. The next task is to promote the rapid diffusion of the techniques
for the production of the self-compacting concrete and its use in construction.
Rational training and qualification systems for engineers should also be established.
In addition, new structural design and construction systems making full use of the
self-compacting concrete should be introduced. When self-compacting concrete
becomes so widely used that it is seen as the “Standard concrete” rather than a
“Special concrete”, we will have succeeded in creating durable and reliable concrete
structures that requires very little maintenance work.

42
 CHAPTER 8

DISADVANTAGES & OBSTACLES FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF SELF COMPACTING CONCRETE
8.1ABSENCE OF ACCEPTANCE SCC

Despite the fact that the SCC has a great numbers of stunning and successful
applications; it was only hesitantly accepted by the industry. This could be
attributed to a number of reasons (Holton 2004). First of all, the standard
specification tests that were used for testing and evaluation conventional
concrete was no longer useful for SCC. As a consequence, it was very difficult
to smoothly put SCC into practice; also, before using SCC, the intensive
preparation efforts were required in the laboratory in order to achieve an
appropriate quality. Second, the sensitivity of SCC is increased proportionally
with change of its mix proportions (particularly the water content) or with
change of the environment such as temperature variations. This increased
sensitivity produces an extra hindrance to the wider use of SCC as it puts a
prices working at the production field.

8.2POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES AND OBSTACLES OF USING SCC

Based on the recent studies, despite the possible benefits of SCC compared
to normal concrete, it can be seen that the implementation of the SCC is still
noticeably limited. According to Peterson (2008:67), the obstacles for
increased application of this type of concrete can be attributed to technical
and non- technical aspects. In the SCC, the quality of mix design and the
conditions of casting concrete should be considered; slight differences in mix
proportions or during its casting may cause a number of technical quality
problems that may pose as hindrances for future use of SCC.
Despite of the intensive and extensive studies on SCC, it can be seen that
there are still some unsolved technical problems and a great number of

43
 technical difficulties related to SCC. Peterson (2008:67) described these
problems in many aspects; such as the problems related to the quality
production of the ready-mix design and the Problems related to the hardened
SCC especially when there is a low surface quality which leads to reduce fire
resistance due to spalling, increase cracking owing to early shrinkage. It is
widely accepted that SCC tends to dry faster than traditional concrete, since
there is slight or no bleeding water at the surface before it is hardened. For
this reason, SCC should be cured when it is practicable after placement to
avoid the incidence of surface shrinkage cracking. Moreover, Peterson
(2008:71) indicates that although the SCC has been considered as one of the
main important invented technology for a more rational way of building with
cast in-situ concrete; there are some projects where SCC has led to create
technical problems such as concrete segregation with non-acceptable
surfaces, concrete cracking owing to plastic shrinkage and formwork failure
due to the high form pressure that may be produced as a result of the flow
ability feature of SCC. It would appear that further studies are required to
achieve a durable and fully satisfying concrete product.

CHAPTER 9

PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN DURING THE EXPERIMENT

44
45
46
 CHAPTER 10

CONCLUSION
Based on investigation conducted for the study of behaviour of SCC the following
conclusion are arrived.
1. As no specific mix design procedures for SCC are available, mix design can be
done with conventional BIS method and suitable adjustment can be done as
per the guidelines provided by different agencies
2. Trail mixes have to be made for maintaining flow ability, self-compatibility and
obstruction clearance.
Based on the above experimental result:
 slump flow increases with the increase of water/cement ratio
 v-funnel, u-box values are decreases with the increase of w/c ratio
 l-box value increase with the w/c ratio and compressive strength are

47
 decreasing as the w/c ratio increases
 marginal increase in compressive strength at 28 days of concrete the w/c
ratio decreases
 compressive strength decreases at higher rate for 7 days’ strength when
compare to 28 days’ strength

REFERENCES

Dhiyaneshwaran, S., Ramanathan, P., Baskar, I. and Venkatasubramani, R.- ‘Study on

Durability Characteristics of Self-Compacting Concrete with Fly Ash’ - Jordan Journal
of Civil Engineering, Volume 7, No. 3, 2013.
Raissa P. Douglas – ‘Properties of Self-Consolidating Concrete Containing Type F Fly
Ash’ - PCA R&D Serial No. 2619.
Arivalagan S – ‘Experimental Analysis of Self-Compacting Concrete Incorporating
different range of High-Volumes of Class F Fly Ash’ – Scholars Journal of
Engineering and Technology (SJET) Sch. J. Eng. Tech., 2013; 1(3):104-111.
Miao Liu – ‘Wider Application of Additions in Self-Compacting Concrete’ – Thesis
submitted to University College London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

48
R Gettu, J Izquierdo, P C C Gomes, A Josa – ‘Development of high-strength self-
compacting concrete with fly ash: a four-step experimental methodology’ - 27th
Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures: 29 - 30 August 2002, Singapore.
Article Online Id: 100027026.
Deepa Balakrishnan S., Paulose K.C. – ‘Workability and strength characteristics of
self-compacting concrete containing fly ash and dolomite powder’ – American
Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) e-ISSN: 2320-0847, p-ISSN: 2320-0936
Volume -2.
Dr. Salahaldein Alsadey – ‘Influence of Superplasticizer on Concrete’ – International
Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology (IJERT) Vol. 1, No. 3, 2012, ISSN
– 2277 4378.
Tarun R. Naik, Yoon-moon Chun, Rakesh Kumar and Bruce W. Ramme –
‘Development of High-Strength Self-Consolidating Concrete’ – Report No. CBU-2003-
14, REP-508, Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, College of Engineering
and Applied Science, The University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee.
Ruža Okrajnov-Bajić, Dejan Vasović – ‘Self-compacting concrete and its application
in contemporary architectural practise’ – SPATIUM International Review UDK
[Link], No. 20, September 2009, P. 28-34 Review paper.
Okamura, Hajime, Ouchi, Masahiro – ‘Self-Compacting Concrete’ – Journal of
Advanced Concrete Technology, 1(1): 5 – 15, 2003.
Liana Iureş and Corneliu Bob – ‘The Future Concrete: Self-Compacting Concrete’ –
Bul. Inst. Polit. Iaşi, t. LVI (LX), f. 1, 2010.
Ms. Priyanka P. Naik, Prof. M. R. Vyawahare – ‘Comparative Study of Effect of Silica
Fume and Quarry Dust on Strength of Self-Compacting Concrete’ – International
Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA), ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 3,
Issue 3, May-Jun 2013, pp.1497-1500.
Md nor Atan, Hanizam Awang – ‘The Compressive and Flexural Strengths of Self-
Compacting Concrete Using Raw Rice Husk Ash’ – Journal of Engineering Science
and Technology, Vol. 6, No. 6 (2011) 720 – 732.
Paratibha Aggarwal, Rafat Siddique, Yogesh Aggarwal, Surinder M Gupta – ‘Self -
Compacting Concrete - Procedure for Mix Design’ – Leonardo Electronic Journal of
Practices and Technologies ISSN 1583-1078 Issue 12, January-June 2008 p. 15-24.
ACM Centre, University of Paisley, UK – ‘Measurement of properties of fresh self-
compacting concrete’ – European Union Growth Contract No. G6RD-CT-2001-00580,
November 2001 – October 2004, Final Report, September 2005.

49